MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095559703 · doi:10.1039/c4cp03585b

Prediction of the wetting condition from the Zeta adsorption isotherm

2014· article· en· W2095559703 on OpenAlexafffund
Chun‐Mei Wu, Seyed Hadi Zandavi, C. A. Ward

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Chemistry Chemical Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Equilibria and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsWettingAdsorptionSurface tensionVapoursChemistryVapor pressureHeptaneThermodynamicsSaturation (graph theory)HydrocarbonZeta potentialTolueneOctaneChemical engineeringChromatographyPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistryNanoparticle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use the Zeta adsorption isotherm and propose a method for determining the conditions at which an adsorbed vapour becomes an adsorbed liquid. This isotherm does not have a singularity when vapour phase pressure, P(V), is equal to the saturation-vapour pressure, Ps, and is empirically supported by earlier studies for P(V) < Ps. We illustrate the method using water and three hydrocarbon vapours adsorbing on silica. When the Zeta isotherm is combined with Gibbsian thermodynamics, an expression for γ(SV), the surface tension of the solid-vapour interface as a function of x(V)(≡P(V)/Ps) is obtained, and it is predicted that adsorption lowers γ(SV) from the surface tension of the substrate in the absence of adsorption, γ(S0), to that at the wetting condition. The wetting hypothesis indicates that γ(SV) at wetting, x, is equal γ(LV), the surface tension of the liquid-vapour interface. For water vapour adsorbing on silica, adsorption lowers γ(SV) to γ(LV) at xVW equal unity, but for the hydrocarbons heptane, octane and toluene adsorbing on silica xVW is found to be 1.40, 1.30 and 1.32 respectively.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Chemistry Chemical PhysicsSame topicPhase Equilibria and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207